Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Cubasis Good app but the sound engine/summing sounds Muddy
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Are you using the same audio-interface for both (iPad & Computer) when comparing the results?
For downsampling 32-float/24->16 there are many ways to do this and the methods do sound different that's for sure.
I do hope I will not fall deep into the same 'trap' as I did with photography back in the days where the technical perfection became more important than the content. If I do I need to find myself a new 'hobby'...
For me, AUM and Auria come off as cleaner than Cubasis before processing, and though AUM doesn't have a timeline, I sequence stuff in Gadget anyways (which comes off as muddier than Cubasis, but that's not where I perform my actual mixdowns).
Also, I've never once had a crash in AUM, even when I load it full of effects. Stuttering, sometimes, but never a crash. Cubasis...?
That's not to say I don't love Cubasis. It's perfect for timestretching stuff to import into Gadget's Zurich and sequencing things like Troublemaker.
Easy way to see if there is difference between rendering on 2 different DAWs is put the 2 rendered files in the same DAW , 2 tracks and phase invert 1 track . There should be no audio in the output .
On other forum there was a comparison (years ago) between popular DAWs.
All rendered the same ....
Yes, transfering the file back to ipad via dropbox to boot.
Hehe, oh my yes that can be a trap.
Woah, cool idea, i will try that and see if I wasnt falling for a placebo.
Just make sure both files start at the same exact sample
Come on, now.
Everyone knows the most expensive DAW sounded way better.
I don’t care what your scientifically accurate test results imply!
Lol , well there is some truth , that’s how the myth started :
Some DAWs have “better” or more musical EQs, Comps, Reverbs etc...
@AudioGus thank you audiogus At last someone with a well trained ear - i was a sound engineer for 10 years and used to teach it too The one thing i told my students was the most essential tool for sound engineers is .... cotton buds/q tips before any recording session - clean the wax out your ears :-)
Lol, that's almost like 'tube amps' versus 'digital perfection' debate.
Terms like "better" are definitely subjective and different DAWs are almost like a religion anyways.
Everyone is entitled to practice their own as long as they stay away from showing it in others throats.
DSP-Math can be done in many so ways and not all ways suite everyone but thankfully we can make choices the suite ourselves
This thread was an interesting read but I was disappointed that the earlier animosity didn't result in either soundclips or violence.
Or soundclips of violence.
I really want to learn something here and you're from the world where
"state of the art" audio is rendered so you can hear small colorizations of sound. Your headphones and monitors probably cost more than all my hardware.
The ears win every time. No specs or technical disclaimers can make you use something you think colors the sound negatively. Not a great message here. Conversely, good enough for my ears works for me. I can't afford to chase "state of the art" audio. What I can create with IOS sounds so much better than the consumer products of previous decades.
I'm curious where IOS would be a benefit for you over a desktop DAW? We all wish the IOS could compete but we live with the limitations to get portability and MOST important to me... lower cost of Applications. I'm still sinking $150-300 a month into my new $429 iPad in the iTunes store. Doing what I do now with real hardware would be well over $20,000 so there's that... good enough is sometimes practical for a hobby.
But you're seeking the best audio your ears can detect. What would IOS give you the state of the art can't?
yep, trust your ears. Live 10 sounds better than 9 also.
There's an opportunity to learn something here.
I contacted the team that makes "Audio Evolution Mobile Studio" to see if they would like to
add their thoughts to this conversation. We need to be careful not to just listen only to our community of IOS believers. 2 IOS products were also compared and 1 was deemed to handle audio input better. That's a clue worth looking into at no cost to us. The basic
"Audio Evolution Mobile Studio" is a free product with IAP's. Not sure if any IAP's are need to do some A-B comparisons of imported Audio.
Finding out more about Sound Engines embedded in these products would add to our understanding of audio processing. I've got to believe Steinberg won't jump into the middle of this "controversy". But the independent developer might tell us more about the sound engine his product uses.
I know there's a JUCE Framework and AudioKit that many independents use to save having to re-create all the standard audio handling functions so maybe we'll learn which one is used here.
This should be fairly straightforward to test. Have three stereo audio source files that don't clip when combined at unity gain.
Load them onto 3 different tracks each set to unity gain with no processing. Render the stereo mix to disk. This can be done with several DAWs.
Then one can do a comparison of the rendered files (played back by the same app) both to each other and to the playback from within the DAWs.
It would be interesting to know the result.
I don't have Cubasis myself, so no idea about it's settings...
As the difference is described 'slight' my main suspect would be an active timestretching/pitchshifting engine.
Which also applies to Ableton (see posts above) and which is a feature of many IOS apps.
An app could run everything through such an engine, resulting in an altered datastream even for a 'factor 1' parameter setting - opposed to the decision between 2 different pathes, where 'factor 1' streams are unprocessed while all other go the stetch-shift path.
@SlowMotion and whoever else These are same 8 track unprocessed files in different daws Check the wavefiles I think I made my point as the OP - i will do a Cubase one tommorow or maybe next year haha with the same exact unprocessed files
Not the best screenshots but for anyone who strongly feels its all the same across DAWS get your ears checked
The summing process will give you the same result across all DAWS yes. It is math. You can't argue with math.
As far as how your ears perceive it, that may indeed vary. That would be entirely psychosomatic though and it makes no sense to trash Cubasis because you have a couple of screws loose. Maybe you don't like the name Cubasis or you don't like the interface. I guarantee you 100% that it's not the summing engine.
@SlowMotion If you care to take a look in depth at those waveforms you will see there are differences in the peaks - i never trashed Cubasis but trashing you along with my loose screws You chimed in with your initial negative “ trashing Cubasis” tantrum Take care of you Shlo Mo...
The same old discussion which daw sounds better. But don't you think that the Steinberg people knew this before they made an app like Cubasis? Hopeless discussion as far as i'm concerned. Just let's make music and use the daw we like.
@Frenq and you have joined the discussion - thats funny
Agreed! Your right. One and one is two? Isn't it beautiful?
That's quite enough of that!